Following the skyrocketing public approval rate of same-sex marriage, it seems that Republican detractors are scrambling to find new and creative ways in which the homosexual agenda threatens to upend life as we know it. None so much as Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart, a charming woman who believes that it's not natural to be gay, because "[i]f it were natural, [gays and lesbians] would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship." This makes sense, because it's a well-documented fact that gay people do not possess genitals.

The day before the Supreme Court starts hearing California's Prop 8 case, CNN/ORC…
Read more Read more

Everhart met with the Marietta Daily Journal over the weekend to summarize for them the plot of I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry:

Advertisement

Advertisement

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it's unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it's all about a free ride.

She didn't mention the fact that a pair of straight opposite-sex partners who are not attracted to each other could do the exact same thing, probably because everyone knows that straight men and women can't be friends for an extended period of time without sticking the one sexual equipment into the other sexual equipment.

Although Everhart's logic is offensive and implausible — seriously, what kind of regressive fiend would argue that it's more important to prevent lazy straight people from pulling a fast one on the government than it is to protect the basic rights of thousands of gay couples? And how would gay marriage increase the (extremely rare) incidence of marriage fraud? — it does raise the question of the necessity for privileging married couples economically and legally. There are 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to married couples, as the government sees marriage as a means of securing public good and security. This is not only rather antiquated, it's also unfair — not only to LGBTQ couples prohibited from getting married, but also to, oh, I don't know, every single person in the country.